Please improve the combat system!

[Danielos]

When is the Civilization-series going to implement a somewhat realistic combat system? The current system where one unit attacks and one unit defends is obsolete and something that need to be adressed. The combat system need to take into account stacks of units. If for example a single swordsman attacks a city defended by one archer, one warrior and one spearman, all three defending units are defending simultaneously.

An improved combat system need also to adress the effect of flanking and encirclements. A unit being attacked from two different directions will be penalized and an encircled unit will be severely penalized. A unit that is attacking an enemy unit when facing another enemy unit in another direction will also have penalties.

There also need to be included lines of supply. A unit which is not able to trace an unbroken line (enemy units along the supply-line) to nearest friendly city will be out of supply and severely penalized. Unit overseas will be in supply if it can trace a supply line to nearest coastal city with no enemy naval units along that line.

There also need to be included morale of troops. The morale of the troops will be based on the overall happiness of your civilization. Units that are encircled and/or out of supply will have severe moral penalties.

 

[jodok]

I agree, you make some good points there, but it would imagine this would lead to some drastic changes to the whole Civ combat engine, and I guess we won't see anything like this until Civ 5 if that is ever released...

 

[Demartus]

So something more like Heroes of Might and Magic combat system?

 

[Beathoven]

Several interesting thought. It is just a question of how to implement it and keep the combatsystem realistic and simple without destroying the gameplay

 

[G Julius Caesar]

Not sure on this myself - although I was glad this wasn't another "I lost an 80% win combat" whinging thread.

I think what you say does make sense (esp. why does only one unit defend when there are three there to do it) but I dont see Civ 4 as a military strategy game where issues like supply lines or moral would be more at home.

Certainly there is a military strategy element, but as the game involves so much else, I dont think you should emphasise one aspect over the other. There is still a reason behind the combat system. I mean, taking one unit to attack 3 defenders isn't really going to be that successful (even if your one attacker won, the other two defenders would probably finish it off).

Changing the combat system I think would make a complicated general strategy game even more complicated.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

... I was glad this wasn't another "I lost an 80% win combat" whinging thread.

Hey, I love those threads!

 

[LuBu]

As bad as the AI is with military units, I dont think you'd ever lose with a stack of 10 units.

 

[cf_nz]

Yes, I would also like a more realistic combat model, though I wouldn't go so far as to include line of supply or morale, I think these over-compliate things.

Stacked attacks are the way to go I think. Though there would probably need to be a limit to the stack size.

 

[Mango]

The AI is already difficult enough to program for from a militaristic standpoint. To put it simply, they do not know how to wage war. If you make it more realistic you're going to just give the human more of an advantage. Humans are always capable of better strategy and figuring out the computer's tendencies.

 

[joasoze]

It woulnt be a problem to go for a Heroes of Might and Magic approach at all. You have a leader/general and he has an army that you can build as you please. The AI should be able to handle that reasonably.

 

[Enigma256]

they tried armies in Civ3, imho it sucked.

the combat system isn't perfect, but it's good enough for me.

 

[Codex]

they tried armies in Civ3, imho it sucked.

Yes it did.

Since the AI's couldn't even properly build an army, let alone actually use one to any effect in the field, armies drastically upset the game balance in favor of the human player. It didn't help that the AI didn't use artillery very well, and couldn't figure out that suicide strikes were necessary to wear down a strong army.

Humans, of course, could figure these things out, and could also figure out that the AI didn't cope with armies well at all. I'd venture a guess that armies would play much better in multiplayer, where players could devise strategies to cope with them, and where the greater importance of warfare in general would increase the chances of the RNG calling up a GMLeader.

In some ways, the Great General Warlords look to me like they were introduced to allow for "army lite" super-units, without making every army a near-invulnerable killing machine. But it doesn't seem like many people use GG's that way, since the long-term benefits of new unit promotions out of a dedicated military production city are so much greater, even though you have to pass over the promotions unique to the Warlord unit. This, of course, could easily be modded to increase the power of the warlord (or decrease the power of the military academy), without fundamentally changing the way combat works in cIV.

I think that you're absolute right that any increase in the complexity of combat will favor the humans. And I have to say that I've got some sympathy with the people who regret that the Warlords expansion has stacked the deck against the peaceful builders. I like tactical simulations, but what's always drawn me to the CIV series is that warfare is not the only objective. Then again, I don't play MP so I'm not frustrated by how the combat system works in the hands of thinking opponents.

- Codex

 

[Akka]

I would really, really love a "Civilization : Total War" system, with the Civilization's global maps, city management, tech and so on, and the Total War's fighting system...

 

[CivDude86]

In case you missed it on the front page earlier there is Dale's Combat Mod.

 

[EdwardTking]

I remember Master of Magic as a system with complicated combat.

I also think that there should be non integral results to an order.
I.e. your unit is too hungry or tired after a long march to attack.

Artillery and cannon should have limited supplies and tanks
should also run out of petrol if they are not refueled.

An every now and then damage should result from friendly fire
(particularly if allied with aggressive and non organised civilisations).

 

[AncientPlayer]

Personally, I hope its never. Civ isn't a war game. If you want a war game (which I also love to play) then get one. Civ's a great game and a lot of fun with the simplistic and unrealistic combat (and economic and political and...) system its got.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

HoI series can offer good background for total industrialized warfare, but as far as medieval/ancient/renaissance goes, there are too much variety to make one detailed system to fit them all.

Supply system should be plausible though. It would be really nice to let us deal with more advanced logistics other than having a road on a terrain or not.

One thing I'd like to see is if they do something about the reliance on chance for combat. Once you got huge stacks rolling against stacks, it's balanced but initially, few lucky battles can just throw the balance out of window so it would be nice if single construction of unit gave players multiple units, so that the % becomes much more consistant and reliable even from beginning.

Edit: that mod looks kick ass.

 

[Smeee]

Call to Power II, had a good way of dealing with combined armies I always thought.

But I can't be bothered trying to describe it without pictures... must still have the install disk round here somewhere....

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think it would be quite easy to implement a good combat system without getting overly complex. After all, Dale has done it, so why not Firaxis?
All we would need is a system where (a) an entire stack is taken into account when calculating success and (b) not all combats are effectively 'to the death'. Some kind of simple 'supply' system wouldn't hurt either, so long as (a) the AI could understand it and (b) players didn't have to take more time considering supply than they did actually fighting.
A simple supply system could rely on a 'If unit is greater than X squares away from a friendly plot, then add an "Out of Supply" 'promotion' (which gives a -20% Combat Strength). You could then make forts act as a 'friendly plot' in order to make them like 'supply depots'.
All very simple to implement, and easy to make an AI understand. We shouldn't even need to wait until Civ5, as the tools clearly already exist. The question is, will Firaxis bring combat up to the same par was the rest of this otherwise excellent game?

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[phungus420]

I would really, really love a "Civilization : Total War" system, with the Civilization's global maps, city management, tech and so on, and the Total War's fighting system...

Rome: Total War's combat model was unparalleled. I consider CIV and RTS to be the strategy gamers crack. Particularly the compat engine in RTS offers a wide range of possible expansions since it's physics and combat system is so realistic. People have modded Muskateers and Tanks using that engine. Yes the company that fuses a similar combat engine with a CIV style economic engine will make $$$.

edit: Oh and as for supply, no it will and never should happen. Adding tedious grinds is the way to reduce your # of possible customers. This is a game, played for enjoyment. One of CIV's drastic improvements over Civ III was it's elimination of so many mundane micromangement tasks. Putting these back in as new features would be counterproductive and annoying in practice, intersting in theory yes, but boring and tedious in practive.